UNION OF INDIA versus S. VIJAYKUMAR AND ORS

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 20-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
S. VIJA YKUMAR AND ORS: 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law-Central Civil Services-Employees-Posted to North 
Eastern Region-Grant of Special Duty Allowance-Office Memoranda dated 
14.12.83 and 20.4.87-fnterpretation of-Held employees who are residents of 
C North Eastern Region are not entitled to allowance-Appointment to 'All 
India Transfer Liability' posts is not enough. 
Constitution of India. 1950: Article 14. 
Special Duty Allowance-Grant of allowance to non-residents and 
D denial to residents of North Eastern region held not violative ofArticle 14. 
The question in those appeals is whether the respondents, who are 
residents of the North Eastern Region and were appointed -to posts which 
have "All India Transfer Liability', are entitled to special duty allowance 
while they are posted in the North Eastern region. The Tribunal answered 
E 
the question in the affirmative because the Office Memorandum dated 
14.12.1983 stated that allowance shall be payable if the posts be those 
which have 'All India Transfer Liability'. The stand of the Appellant-Union 
of India was that the Memorandum dated 14.12.83 when read with sub-
sequent Memorandum dated 20.4.87 would show that (i) the allowance was 
F 
to be paid to who are posted in the North Eastern Region and not to those 
who were residents of this Region; (ii) the allowance was not payable 
merely because there was a clause in the appointment order that person 
concerned is liable to be transferred anywhere in India. 
The respondents contended that denial of allowance to the residents, 
G while permitting the same to the non-residents was violative of Article 14 
of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal, 
this Court 
H 
HELD : 1. The respondents are not entitled to the allowance. A close 
716 
U.0.1. v. S. VIJA YKUMAR (HANSARIA, J.; 
717 
perusal of the two memoranda date 14.12.1983 and 20.4.1987, clearly shows A 
that allowance in question was meant to attract persons outside the North 
Eastern Region to work in that Region because of inacces.sil}ility and. dif-
ficult terrain. This aspect is made clear beyond doubt by the 1987 
Memoraridum which stated that the allowance would not become payable 
merely because of the clause in the appointment order relating to All India 
Transfer liability. Merely because in the office memorandum of 1983 it was 
mentioned that allowance shall be payable if the posts be those which have 
B 
'All India Transfer liability' is not enough to concede to the respondents' 
claim. However, whatever amount has been paid to the respondents, or for 
that matter to other similarly situated employees, would not be recovered 
from them so far as the allowance is concerned. 
[719-E, 718-F, 719-B, 719-F] 
2. The denial of the allowance to the respondents cannot be regarded 
as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [719-E] 
c 
Reserve Bank of India v. Reserve Bank of India Staff Officers Associa-
D 
tion and Ors., [1991] 4 S.C.C. 132, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3251 of 
1993 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.92/9.6.92 of the Central E 
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in RA.No. 71 of 1992. 
K.T.S.Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, V.C. Mahajan, N.N. Gos-
wamy, Dr. Shankar Ghosh; C.V.S. Rao, Ms. A. Subhasini, Ms. Sushma Suri, 
Ms. Binn Tamta, S. Wasim, A Qadri, S.N. Terdol, P. ·Narasimhan, S.K. 
Nandy and D.S. Mehra for the appearing parties. 
F 
Respondent-in-Person (NP) in C.A.No. 3251/93. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARIA, J. The point for determination in this appeal and in the 
special leave petitions (which have our leave) is, whether the respondents G 
are entitled to special duty allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
allowance'), even though they are residents of North-Eastern Region mere-
ly because of the posts to which they were appointed were of "All India 
Transfer Liability". The Tribunal has answered the question in affirmative. 
These appeals have been preferred by the Union of India. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
2. The Tribunal took the aforesaid view because the Office 
Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 which is on the subject of "Allowances and 
facilities for civilian employees of the Central Government s_erving in the 
States and Union Territories of the North-Eastern Region-improvement 
thereof'' 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.